Live Stream #175: Meta the Meta, Meta Responses

Welcome to the Ancient Egypt and the Bible live stream. In these live streams, I will take your questions on ancient Egypt and the Bible.





Our live stream Q&A sessions generally run for three to four hours. And as always, superchats are given priority when it comes to answering questions. However, I always try to answer a few non-superchat questions. If you are posting a question in the comments that is not a superchat, please begin the question with a Q: so I can see that it a question being directed towards me. I would also request that you not repeat your questions, so I can better see which questions I have already answered.

It is important to note that these live streams are a live show, without notes or prior preparation. I don’t normally get the questions in advance, so I don’t even know which questions I am going to receive and nobody screens the questions. So I don’t necessarily promise that any question will flesh our every last detail or reference all the literature on the subject, nor do I necessary hold to that the answers are even necessarily correct. I do make mistakes at times and even sometimes change my opinions when I receive new data that points to the contrary. My answers are intended to address the direct inquiry and are not a substitute for a sound Biblical commentary.

At the request of some of my viewers, I have also set up a crypto currency wallet. Monero XMR: 46RXpVRn5QtK25gU1naVa72tWa1nGdfGwK8npLaAZKwKQp9i8qbe1CDS5cjVcNX4Ug47Uh5Q8kid3eDV5za9b4saQ5sEWf5

Bitcoin BTC: bc1qn4hykytwr4kh8c2z9w05mqcq040h9vgtwl0pt5

Please also consider purchasing my book, "The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey." Available now through most major book retailers.

[wol]

Nahum Sarna JPS commentary on Exodus is the frist commentary I go to. But it is missing much other historical and cultural background. However, your channel has filled in so many gaps.

[vulteiuscatellus]

So are you planning on addressing Kipp Davis’s upcoming series of videos?

[daduzadude]

Thank You for answering my question - again.
Didn’t catch it 3 weeks ago 🤔

[Mobius]

I saw a drawing of an Egyptian inscription that had what looked like 3 men in a chariot. That is what the caption said. I don't remember what it was from. If this is accurate it may be what is meant by 'iron chariots' at Beth Shean. I don't think iron would be used for any kind of protection on a chariot.

[RichLuciano]

It looks like a couples of passages used for an afterlife is demonstrated by implying animals have no life after death. Job 1 and 42. Would you disagree?

Job 1:2-3 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

Job 42:12-13 So the LORD blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning: for he had fourteen thousand sheep, and six thousand camels, and a thousand yoke of oxen, and a thousand she asses. He had also seven sons and three daughters.

Is there scriptural evidence for an earthly animal's life after death?

[tymmiara]

I'm not sure you interpreted Licona charitably enough. Saying that a passage in Matthew 27:51-53 is a portent (not intended to be read as a historical event), is miles away from denying the resurrection of Jesus.
Your quotation at 44:18 of Paul is a misquotation. Paul said "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And *if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins*".
This targets nothing of Licona's position, which affirms the resurrection, just not of the people in the tombs on Good Friday who would then sit there doing nothing for a couple of days and then come out of their tombs after Jesus' resurrection.

Coincidentally, just 7 days ago Licona posted on his community tab on YouTube "The resurrection hypothesis isn't just about faith; it's about finding the best explanation for all the facts with minimal speculation." If that isn't defending the resurrection, then I don't know what is. Well... I do know. A seven-hour-long debate with Ehrman (which I watched) also made it clear he absolutely defends the resurrection.

I am not aware of Licona ever arguing that Matthew 27:51-53 didn't happen because it "can't happen". Rather, I would point to Licona's own YouTube video on the topic titled "Were People Raised When Jesus Died?"
He raises 2 points:
1. Matthew might be doing what ancient writers did. He says about Virgil describing portents when Caesar died: "there was a comet, mount Etna erupted, that pale phantoms were seen walking around, that streams stopped flowing.
Other writers mention the eclipse of the sun and a comet. "
Licona then says "Josephus wrote that right before the temple was destroyed, a number of portents happened: there was a comet, the gates of Jerusalem which took more than 20 people to open, opened by themselves, a cow gave birth to a lamb." Then he moves on to Cassius Dio saying that when Caesar went to Egypt, a number of portents happened, one of them being the gates of the temple Jupiter opening by themselves.
He follows "in other of these kinds of accounts we have fighting seen in the heavens, sometimes bloody weapons fell to the earth, comets and eclipses happen, darkness, and in Virgil, pale phantoms walking around at sunset"
He then concludes "Maybe what Matthew is doing here is more of the same. Portents are mentioned when something of cosmic or divine importance takes place. So that gives us reason to think that Matthew didn't mean this passage to be read in the same historical sense".
At the end of the video, he says that many of these accounts co-mingle historical events with portents. For example, an author might say that both a comet and an eclipse happened, but we know, from astronomical data, that only a comet was visible, but there was no eclipse.
"So to accuse the author of deceiving us is to show naivete about ancient literature"

2. Licona says there are theological problems with Matthew 27:51-53. Were these people raised in pre-resurrection bodies (like Lazarus) or in the resurrection bodies? If in resurrection bodies, then that contradicts 1 Corinthians 15:20.23 "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. [...] But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come". If the saints came back to life on Good Firday in resurrection bodies, then Christ cannot be the firstfruits, so Matthew is contradicting Paul here. If they were brought back to life in mortal bodies, then they didn't come out of the tombs before 36 hours later, at which point they would be hungry, thirsty, homeless, and clueless as to what is happening to the point that people would likely consider them drunk or insane (Licona tries to imagine how a starving, thristy and homeless person would be received if they also said they lived during the times of Solomon, for example). We have no accounts of long-dead people sticking around or being part of the church. Licona says the church fathers often quote the events co-ocurring with Jesus' crucifixion, but they leave out the part about the people coming back to life.

I think you misrepresented him by saying he thinks "it didn't happen because it can't happen". He provides conservative biblical arguments that Christ has to be the first to resurrect. He provided evidence that the passage might be of different genre found elsewhere in literature of 1st century BC to 2nd century AD.
You are well familiar with this argument. You yourself criticise ABR for misinterpreting the genre of 1 Kings 6:1 and you point to aproximately the same amount of other temple dedication inscriptions from the era to support your claim. I can't see how Licona's approach is any more liberal than yours regarding the passage. Licona never said Matthew got something wrong or that Matthew deceived his readers, similarly to how 480 years did not deceive anyone at the time of its writing.

[johnirish]

My favorite argument against the trinity is that of Ernest L Martin's:
In all his salutations in all his epistles not once does Paul mention the holy spirit and the one time he does mention it at the end of 2nd Corinthians it's merely the COMMUNION of the holy spirit. Gee Paul how disrespectful. Any and all trinitarians please explain this enigma.

The trinity is a demonic doctrine. The Son was begotten, His Father was not. Begotten and eternal do not go together.

The obsession of the trinity, Freud would have a field day. The insistence of the trinity, an example of His locked stubbornness, His blinding the eyes. Our Lord is perfectly content being Numero Dos in His Father's universe.

Luke 1:35 defines the Holy Spiriit: the power of the MOST High. Romans 12;3: God parts to each the measure of faith. For me, all is out of God. All power and holy spirit His Son has was parted to Him by His Father.